On Monday 28 January 2008 8:20 Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Monday 28 January 2008 21:02:55 Jeremy Koo wrote:
> > With the following I hope to eliminate situations where a vote of
> > OBJECT would result in a given vote achieving quorum, making the
> > objector's vote that allows the vote to be accepted.
>
> Uh, perhaps you didn't notice that the quorum on dependent actions (the only
> Agoran decisions for which SUPPORT or OBJECT is a sensible option) is zero?
> Also perhaps you didn't notice that SUPPORT and OBJECT are not valid options
> on Agoran decisions on whether to adopt proposals (though perhaps they are
> valid synonyms for such options).
>
> -woggle
That's a syntactic technicality easily fixed by substituting FOR and AGAINST
for SUPPORT and OBJECT.
Nevertheless, I would refactor the proposal something like this...
Quorum Busting (AI=3 please)
Jeremy is a coauthor of this proposal.
Create a new rule with power 3, titled "Option Consequences", with the
following text:
Each available option on an Agoran decision has a consequence, which is
a possible outcome for that decision.
The consequence of FOR is ADOPTED. The consequence of AGAINST is
REJECTED. The consequence of SUPPORT is APPROVED. The consequence of
OBJECT is REJECTED.
Amend rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by inserting " indicating the
option of which the consequence would otherwise be the outcome" immediately
after "the number of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots" in
paragraph (a).
This generalizes the fix. Unfortunately, it also makes 955(a) unreadable; can
anyone correct that?
Pavitra
--
Clearly, the nuts had more of an impact than the bolts.
Steve Meretzky
